Task 2 Cavern Study Ground model and 3D cavern layout

1. Task 2 Cavern StudyGround model and 3D cavern layout Matt Sykes Eden Almog Alison Barmas Yung Loo Agnieszka Mazurkiewicz Franky Waldron 5 December 2011

2. General Overview

3. CLIC Geometry (version G)

4. Beam Line. 15,000t detector on a slab and movement system. Detector moves 15 times per year from beam into “garage position” Garage Cavern & Access Shaft Interaction Region (“IR”)

5. How do we limit cavern invert deflection to less than 0.5mm (creep and absolute) (Controlled by ground yield and invert stiffness) Slab deflection limited to 2mm Is cavern geometry: Feasible for working concept? Influencing yield at IR?

6. Interaction Cavern Outline Geometry (version G)

7. Task 2 – Study Summary Geotechnical Review Completed Underway Not Started Cavern Design

8. Stress Analysis and Ground Yielding

9. Boundary Element Modelling (3D Stress Analysis) • Linear elastic stress analysis in Examine3D s/w. • Indication of how stress manifests at the interaction of the cavern’s boundary and the ground. • Analyses carried out comparing Layout G and a layout where the caverns are pushed apart by 5m. • Effective strength criteria used to estimate rock mass yielding.

10. Layout G – Principal Stress Trajectories Increased stress on interaction cavern crown due to arching effects – heavy support and increased yielding

11. Layout G + 10m – Principal Stress Trajectories Arching effects diminished with separation distance– reduced support and yielding

12. Contours of Overstress Geometry G + 10m Geometry G Mobilised Strength (overstressed when < 1)

13. Layout G

14. Layout G + Interaction Cavern Enlargement

15. Construction Sequence

16. 2D FE Geotechnical Modelling Eden Almog

17. Stress History and Ground Parameters Simulated Current Stress State Soil mass parameters: Ko = 1.1 – 1.5 depending on Moraine deposition history

18. Detailed 2D FE Analysis Pressure relief holes (pore-water -pressure reduction) Sequential Excavation • Other features: • Molasse drained behaviour with steady state seepage forces • Stress relaxation per stage • Shotcrete hardening with time

19. 2D Invert Deformations 3mm 3mm Longitudinal: 3.3mm / 16.6m Transversal: 3.3mm-3 mm /13.5m Unacceptable invert deformation in longitudinal direction. Highlights the need to consider 3D structure effects

20. 3D Bedded Spring Model Agnieszka Mazurkiewicz

21. 3D Finite Element AnalysisStructural Design Lining Thickness: 1.0m Concrete C50/60 (G = 37 GPa) • Interaction Cavern • 3D-model comprises: • Lining • Invert Slab Invert Slab Thickness: 5.6m Concrete C50/60 • (G = 37 GPa)

22. Ground Pressure (Including Stress Arching) Max Horizontal Pressure: 1090 kPa Max Vertical Pressure: 770 kPa

23. Moving Slab Distributed Load • 800 kPa • Moving slab distributed load applied in the middle of the cavern span. 13.5m 15.5m

24. Radial Springs Tangential Springs Lining Boundary Conditions Springsrepresent ground stiffness Pinned connection at interaction cavern and the service caverns interface

25. Boundary Conditions Three following ground stiffness has been investigated in order to evaluate the ground-structure interaction: • 2D FE non-linear model stiffness: • Radial Springs: 100 kPa/mm • 2x FE model stiffness • Radial Springs: 200 kPa/mm • 3x FE model stiffness • Radial Springs: 300 kPa/mm

26. Serviceability Limit State AnalysisInvert Slab Deformed Shape • Ground Pressure + Moving Slab + • + Self Weight Final Deformation

27. Longitudinal Cross Section

28. Lateral Cross Section

29. Conclusions and Recommendations

30. Interaction Cavern – Conclusions & Recommendations • Assuming a conservative model, invert static deformations exceed acceptable limits. This depends on extent of yielding around cavern during construction (i.e. EDZ(1)). • An appropriate construction sequence should limit this. • EDZ expected to be larger than the simulated in the 2D FE models due to 3D stress arching resulting from service caverns. • Construction of shaft and interaction cavern prior to service caverns sequence would limit soil yielding at the invert. However significant support (piling under invert and pre-stressing) will be required to assure the long term stability of the invert. • Alternatives to consider... (1) Excavated Damaged Zone

31. Revision G Caverns Moved Closer Concrete Pillar, separation governed by detector proximity ~20m separation High Stress around IR

32. Potential Advantages: • Reduces lining stress around caverns • Slab foundations likely to be extremely stiff • Vertical walls at IP, machine/detector • Slab size potentially independent of detector width • Minimum travel time and umbilical lengths • Potential drawbacks: • Detectors too close wrt stray field • … A Section A-A A

33. A similar proposal has been done times ago under the name of the Quads’ Bridge, the aim being to assure a rigid link between the two QD0 and thus minimize their relative movements. A. Gaddi, CERN PhysicsDepartment

34. Quads bridge femanalysis.